Saeed Jalilvand, in an interview with the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations’ website, stated, “The recent trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union is not an equal partnership but rather the result of unilateral pressures from the Trump administration.” The international affairs analyst believes that this agreement serves U.S. interests more than it benefits the global economy. Jalilvand explained: “Using the leverage of threatening heavy tariffs, Trump placed Europe in a position where it had no choice but to accept the agreement. This agreement ostensibly prevented a trade war, but in reality, it forced Europe to accept an unequal trade relationship.”

Jalilvand highlighted the complexities of the European Union’s decision-making structure, which made negotiations challenging. Despite Europe’s initial efforts to propose zero tariffs in exchange for zero tariffs, internal disagreements among member states, particularly between France and Germany, reduced Europe’s ability to resist U.S. pressure. The international affairs analyst added: “France wanted a more stringent approach, but Germany and Italy, due to their economic dependence on export markets, preferred to agree to a minimal deal.” According to him, this lack of coordination reflects the European Union’s structural weakness in the face of the United States’ aggressive trade strategies.

Jalilvand also addressed the unrealistic nature of some commitments in the agreement, particularly in the energy sector. Citing analysts such as Matt Smith from Kepler, he emphasized that “the target of $250 billion in annual energy purchases from the U.S. seems unattainable, given Europe’s decarbonization plans and the commitments of European companies’ stakeholders.” This “indicates the imposition of a will that seeks to demonstrate political and economic power rather than being based on economic realities.”

Global Economic Consequences

In his analysis, Jalilvand discussed the implications of this agreement for the global economy, believing that “this agreement could push the international trade order toward instability.” He explained: “The 15% tariff on European goods, including automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, will increase production and consumption costs in Europe. This will not only lead to a 0.5% reduction in the European Union’s GDP but will also affect global supply chains.”

According to the international affairs analyst, “This agreement, by increasing Europe’s dependence on U.S. energy and investment, will shift the trade balance in favor of the United States.” He warned that “this trend could weaken Europe’s economic independence and put other major economies, such as China and Japan, under pressure to accept similar terms.” Jalilvand added: “By modeling the agreement with Japan, Trump demonstrated that his strategy is based on creating fear and then offering solutions that benefit the U.S. economy. This approach undermines the rules-based global trade order.”

The expert also referenced an International Monetary Fund report that assessed global economic risks as rising due to trade uncertainties. Jalilvand believes that “although this agreement has averted a trade war in the short term, in the long term, it could pose serious challenges to the global economy by increasing trade costs and reducing competitiveness.” In his view, “economically more vulnerable countries, such as developing economies, will suffer the most from these trade inequalities.”

America’s Hegemonic Strategy and Potential Reactions

In another part of his analysis, Jalilvand addressed the challenges countries face in dealing with America’s hegemonic policies, noting that “Trump’s strategy, based on threats and negotiations with short-term deadlines, has shown other countries that resisting the U.S. comes with heavy costs.” However, he pointed out that “this approach could lead to the formation of new coalitions against U.S. dominance.” Jalilvand said: “Countries such as China, India, and even some members of the European Union may seek to strengthen regional cooperation and reduce dependence on the U.S. market.”

He referenced the failed U.S.-China trade agreement in 2020 and warned that “major commitments in this agreement, such as energy purchases, may fail due to their unrealistic nature.” The international affairs analyst believes that “these failures could lead to further distrust in the global trade system and open the door for alternative trade orders.” He added: “Europe should learn from this experience and, instead of surrendering, seek to strengthen its strategic independence.”